Volume 249 — North Eastern Reporter, Third Series

ADMINISTRATIVE – ZONING – APPELLATE REVIEW: Where the trial court misconstrued the common usage of the term "single-family dwelling" and failed to interpret any ambiguity in favor of the property owners, the trial court erred in finding the use of the properties as short-term rentals was not a legal nonconforming use.

CIVIL – The alleged violation of an assignment of a fractional interest in four twenty-acre drill site units is governed by the statute of limitations on property, despite the fact that assignees seek only money damages. The assignment of a fractional working interest in four twenty-acre drill site units in 2007 contains a 4000-foot depth restriction as a consequence of Ohio law in effect at the time the assignment was executed.

Standing declaratory judgment reciprocal easement agreement condominium instruments declaration and bylaws condominium unit owners' association summary judgment res judicata. The trial court's judgment granting summary judgment to the condominium unit owners' association was affirmed. Appellant was not an interested person under the condominium declaration. Therefore, appellant lacked standing to seek declaratory judgment concerning the relationship between the condominium owners' association and the condominium owners. Appellant's claims pertaining to the reciprocal easement agreements were barred by res judicata.

Duhart. 1) Delayed ruling did not result in prejudice 2) Modifying child support before ruling on objections was not error 3) Child support order was improper to the extent that it ordered Mother to pay child support from April 2021 to March 2022 4) Mother properly named child support obligor 5) Rejecting stipulations was proper 6) Attorney fees were proper. 7) Tax dependency allocation was proper.

Motion for relief from judgment Civ.R. 60(B) Civ.R. 36(A)(1) abuse of discretion due diligence res judicata newly discovered evidence excusable neglect sanctions, and App.R. 23.

Summary judgment standing real party in interest admission pleading attorney fees block-billing fee shifting expert report untimely proof damages breach of contract. Appellants waived defenses of standing and real party in interest by failing to timely raise the defenses. Fee-shifting agreement was enforceable where parties had equal bargaining power, the terms were freely negotiable, and the provision did not promote illegal acts or act as penalty. Although block-billing in attorney-fee bills is not a best practice, it is not per se illegal and attorney fees may be awarded if the court can determine they are reasonable. Appellants were not prejudiced by late production of attorney-fee expert report where appellees' counsel could have testified to the reasonableness of attorney fees if the expert had been excluded.

Appellant's conviction for operating a vehicle while under the influence was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The evidence established that she drove erratically, struck a guardrail and another vehicle, was belligerent, failed or did not complete field sobriety tests, and exhibited other signs of intoxication. The state trooper did not testify as an expert about damage to appellant's vehicle therefore Crim.R. 16 did not apply. Because forensic evaluations found appellant to have been sane at the time of the offenses and competent to stand trial, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding as irrelevant evidence related to prior injuries appellant had suffered. After appellant attempted to subvert the trial court's ruling by asserting that her belligerent conduct was a result of her prior diagnoses, the State's limited follow-up questioning did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct. The trial court did not err in overruling appellant's post-trial motion for acquittal, which was based on the trooper's failure to preserve a bottle of liquor that was in appellant's car and the receipt for its purchase. Appellant asserted that these items would have been exculpatory based on her claim that she only drank from the bottle after the accident, but she was not charged with an open container violation, and therefore the bottle was not contraband subject to seizure. Defense counsel did not act ineffectively in failing to request a psychological expert. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed.

Judgment of the pleadings equal protection clause rational-basis test. The trial court erred by granting judgment on the pleadings to Cuyahoga County on the Equal Protection claims alleged by the appellants in their complaint because the county's enactment of Cuyahoga County Ord. 02021-0004 is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.

Easement by estoppel, fraud. Appellant has clearly and convincingly established entitlement to an easement by estoppel that applies where "an owner of land, without objection, permits another to expend money in reliance upon a supposed easement, when in justice and equity the former ought to have disclaimed his or her conflicting rights." The trial court's judgment is reversed in part and remanded. The remainder of the judgment is affirmed.

Sulek - Trial court errs when it considers issues of causation and contributory fault during a damages hearing following a default judgment

not entitled to extension of benefits in the form of Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC) pursuant to federal law, PEUC was not available unless claimant exhausted regular compensation in paying state (Ohio) and had no right to regular unemployment in this or any other state (Pennsylvania).

Finding no error of law or other defect on the face of the magistrate's decision, we adopt the decision as our own, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, and grant respondent's motion to dismiss relator's petition for a writ of procedendo.

Arbitration R.C. 2711.01(B)(1). The trial court did not err in staying this matter pending arbitration because the parties agreed to arbitration in their lease agreement. R.C. 2711.01(B)(1) does not apply because it is not a controversy involving the title to or the possession of real estate.

motion for leave to file a motion to suppress evidence and motion in limine no abuse of discretion in granting motion Crim.R. 12(D) Traf.R. 11(C) Crim. 12 (H) Traf.R. 11(F)

Appellant filed a complaint asserting causes of action for racial discrimination, retaliation, and creating a hostile workplace after appellee terminated appellant's employment. The trial court did not err by rendering summary judgment in appellee's favor on each cause of action. Judgment affirmed.

Zmuda, J., writing for the majority affirms the conviction where statements of victim and her daughter to 911 operator and to police were not testimonial hearsay, violative of the Confrontation Clause, and appellant's challenge to sufficiency and weight of the evidence was not supported by the record.

State's appeal. The trial court erred in suppressing appellant's statements implicating himself in domestic violence against his wife. Appellant was not subjected to custodial interrogation or entitled to Miranda warnings when the statements were made appellant was at home, his freedom of movement had not been restricted in any way, and he had not been handcuffed or told he was under arrest. Police officers did not threaten or intimidate appellant during the conversational encounter. Judgment reversed and remanded.

Settlement agreement, subject-matter jurisdiction. Trial court's ruling on motion to enforce settlement agreement must be vacated where the trial court failed to retain jurisdiction to do so in its journal entry.

Appellant's conviction for forcible rape, into which aggravated burglary and sexual battery offenses had been merged, was not supported by sufficient evidence. The trial court did not commit reversible error by excluding certain lay witness opinion testimony at trial the testimony at issue would have resulted in speculation, and its exclusion did not prejudice appellant. Judgment vacated as to the forcible rape and remanded to the trial court for it to: (1) consider whether the vacation of the forcible rape conviction affects the aggravated burglary offense for which appellant was found guilty and, if necessary, whether the guilty verdict for sexual battery supports a conviction on the lesser-included offense of aggravated burglary and (2) sentence appellant for the offenses that merged into his forcible rape conviction.

A jury found in favor of the medical providers in this medical negligence case. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling challenges to four perspective jurors. After the jury had been selected but before the selection of alternate jurors, two jurors were excused for medical reasons and replaced with the next jurors in line. At this point, appellant had exercised all of its non-alternate peremptory challenges. The trial court did not commit plain error when it did not allow appellant to exercise further peremptory challenges to the two replacement jurors. Judgment affirmed.

Manifest Weight Domestic Violence Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle Burglary Motion for a New Trial Abuse of Discretion Crim.R. 33 Juror Misconduct Nondisclosure Verdict Form R.C. 2945.75. Defendant-appellant's convictions for domestic violence, unauthorized use of a vehicle, and burglary were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err by denying defendant-appellant's motion for a new trial. The verdict forms complied with R.C. 2945.75.

ARBITRATION – MOTION TO COMPEL – R.C. 4112.02 – SEXUAL HARASSSMENT – DISCRIMINATION – FRANKEN AMENDMENT – 48 C.F.R. 222.7402: Where the parties' binding arbitration agreement provided that claims covered under the Franken Amendment were excluded from arbitration, and where plaintiff's claim for discrimination based on sex in violation of R.C. 4112.02 was covered by the Franken Amendment, the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion to compel arbitration.

BRADY VIOLATION – MATERIALITY – PREJUDICE – ASSAULT – NEW TRIAL: Defendant stated a meritorious Brady claim because the State failed to disclose a recorded statement of the sole eyewitness in which the witness disclosed bias against defendant and a motive to fabricate the allegations. Defendant's conviction for assault was based on sufficient evidence where a witness testified defendant, an employee at a group home, slapped a client who was functionally impaired in the face, causing the client to hunch down as if in pain.

CIVIL LAW - aggravated disorderly conduct disorderly conduct constitutionality of probation sentence appellate court has discretion to decline review when issue was not raised in the court below Crim.R. 52(B).